ecg_list_conflicts

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that only titles and ids are returned ('no bodies'), which is useful. However, it does not mention read-only safety, authentication needs, pagination, or other behavioral traits expected for a list operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short sentences, front-loads the primary purpose, and efficiently specifies the output limit. Every phrase earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers scope and return shape, but it omits any explanation of the required session_id and gives no context about what a session represents, leaving a notable gap for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the sole required parameter (session_id) is never mentioned or explained. The description does not compensate for the missing schema-level documentation, leaving the parameter's meaning and expected format unclear.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('conflicts') with the scope narrowed to 'open supersession or contradiction conflicts,' which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ecg_resolve_conflict.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The word 'open' implies when the tool is relevant, but no explicit guidance is given about when to use it versus ecg_resolve_conflict or other siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.